Bobby

Hmmm. Why would I attach this Fuller person when I never heard of him. For that matter, I don't recall attacking anyone on this board.

I believe you will find that Newton stated that he did not know what the force which controls the planets was and he made no assumptions.

OK. so you know a little bit about Physics. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The reason I thought the equivalence principle and differential geometry were not connected is as follows. Differential Geomety is the Calculus applied to Geometry. Usually only mass and energy are considered when coming up with a Geometry. It seems to me that adding motion, especially accelerated motion, would add to the mathematical difficulties without adding anything to the solution. The links you provided are very interesting. Regards, BP

I post a lot and sometimes I am not clearly understood. When this happens I don't take offense, I try to restate what I said. Who is this WE from this board. As I said above, sometimes I am misunderstood, so let me make this clear ==> Your answer makes me doubt that you know crap about Physics. Perhaps you can discuss this with the WE you mention.

I don't think this is correct. A particle moving in space at a constant velocity will continue to move at the same velocity unless acted upon by a force. As long as the spacetime geometry remains unchanges the motion of the particle will remain unchanged. Hmmm. I thought this is what I said. All motion can be explained as a change in coordinate systems. Well, I know a little bit about the principle of equivalence and differential geometry. You are right on the differential geometry and wrong on the principle of equivalence.

Action at a distance was never assumed, rather it was a problem to be explained by the introduction of fields. I don't much care for the idea of a spacetime, but to answer your question, the force represented by a spacetime map would start at the edge of the Earth's gravitational field and extend downward to the center of the Earth. I think all scientists would agree that gravity is associated with mass/energy. Spacetime is used as a tool to give shape to a gravitational field. The problem I have with spacetime is it has evolved as if it is something physical that can be measured. Spacetime cannot BE measure, spacetime IS the measurement.

This sounds reasonable but it doesn't work this way. Suppose the sun suddenly ceased to exist. This would not be felt by the Earth for about 8 minutes. Your understanding is correct. Curved spacetime doesn't initiate motion. An object must already be moving to be affected by a curved spacetime. IMO curved spacetime is a mathematical gimmick to make gravitational fields easier to use. If you mapped a gravitational field using clocks and rulers, there would be a difference in measurements at different places. The measurements are real. To call the measurements a warped spacetime gives the measurements a physicalness they don't deserve. I think van Flandern is a disgrace. Misstateing something in ignorance can be forgiven. Deliberately misstateing something cannot. The apparent creation of energy in a gravitational field is just that, it is apparent, not real. Consider someone in a spaceship without windows performing experiments. There would be no changes in energy. It is only when you view one frame of reference from a different one that energy becomes apparent.

Scientists have never liked whatthey call "Action at a distance". They much prefer an action as a direct result of physical processes. The three usual "actions at a distance" are electric charge, magnetism and gravity. To get around the "action at a distance" problem, scientists posit that the source of the action creates a space around them in such a way that another object within the field will be affected. Did anyone say "Wishy Washy?" Magnetism is a manifestation of electric charge so magnetism is folded into electric charge. An electric charge affects another electric charge. Whether there is an electric field in the absense of another electric charge is debatable. Likewise, gravity affects another mass. Looking at gravity as Newton saw it, a gravitational field probably wouldn't exist in the absense of another body of mass. Looking at gravity from Relativity's point of view, gravity determines the geometry (shape) of spacetime and would seem to exist in every point of view. A gravitational field could be called a spacetime field with the following definition ==> A spacetime field is an infinite number of points infinitely close together with a means to measure position and time at each point."

No one probably knows what gravity "really" is. You can look at gravity as a force propagated by a gravitational field. You can also look at it as a force carrying particle. These particles aren't particles like a baseball, rather they are more like a small bundle of energy. If two bodies of mass share their mass with each other, one body's loss would be the other's gain and vice versa.

Science makes a lot of assumptions that I sometimes question. One of them is that there is no place in the universe significantly different from any other place. This means that if you look out at the universe as it is and if someone a zillion, zillion miles away looks put, both views would be pretty much the same. This also means that anyone, anywhere, looking out into space is also looking back in time, and if there is an age to the universe at one place, then that same age would apply everywhere in the universe. There are not very many serious scientists who claim to know what lies beyond our Universe. The distance between the stars and galaxies seem to be getting larger and this is interpreted is an expanding universe. By an expanding universe, they do not mean that our universe is a sphere that is getting larger. I suspect the english language simply has no word to explain what the scientists mean when they say the universe is expanding. Cosmologists look for things they call candles, or markers. The idea is to find something that always happens the same way. There are certain super-novas that shine at the same brightness. If you find two of these markers, and you know the distance to one of them, you can tell how far away the other one is by how the brightness is less due to distance. These markers and other data seem to imply that the universe is around 12 billion years old. If our universe had a beginning, a reasonable question would be where did it come from? I have an opinion based on two principles ( 1 ) The Law of Conservation of mass and energy is true and ( 2 ) the present is the key to the past. ( 1 ) The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If energy cannot be created, then there was energy somewhere before our universe was created. And if there was energy before our universe was created, then there is no valid reason to believe that our universe took all of the available energy and there is no more anywhere. ( 2 ) The present is the key to the past is from Geology. It means if you see something that happened in the past and you don't know how it happened, look around the present for something similar. As an example, if you looked into the Grand Canyon and wondered how it came to be, then look aroundthe present and notice how a stream can cut through the soil. If this happens in the present (which you know it does) then this could also have happened in the past. Apparently our Universe started some 12 billion years ago as a Big Bang. If I look around the present for something that makes a Big Bang, I find that a Black Hole can come to an end in a Big Bang. There are many possible answers to the birth and end of our universe. It appears to me that the most likely situation is as follows: ( 1 ) Since energy cannot be created, there was never a time when energy did not exist, ( 2 ) Since energy cannot be destroyed, there will never be a time when energy does not exist. ( 3 ) If there was always energy, there is no reason to think that there is a limit to the amount of energy. ( 4 ) If Black Holes can form in our universe, then they could form in other universes, assuming that such universes exist. IMO ===> There was no beginning, there will be no end, there is no reason to belive that the amount of energy is finite. This seems to imply that there are universes without end, perhaps as Black Holes or some similar mechanism.

Why couldn't gravity be the thing that spreads at C and light propagates through the gravitational field as with T1 = T2 ( 1 + gt/C^2). Setterfield, or Sutterfield, or whatever his name is trying so sell books based on bad science. First, gravity does not propagate instantely, it travels as C. Secondly, one object does not orbit another object, rather they both orbita the center of gravity between the two objects. Thirdly, calculating the center of gravity is a little hard to explain. Basically it is where the sun and earth WERE, not where they are now. Since this point is somewhere near the sun, the earth is orbiting this point as it was abount eight minutes ago.

LOL. If you needed a PHD to get a basic understanding of physics, there would be no boards such as this. A high school physics book would be nice as would knowledge of high school math. I am always open to questions or discussions on physics. I can be reached at bobbybobjan@aol.com. If you are a member of AOL, check out the research and learn board "Anything Goes Science"

Hmmm. It appears to me that Will could have chosen different words to express his opinion, but what's done is what's done. "There is a saying I like that goes something like this ===> "If you can't convince them with logic, then dazzle them with Bull ****". Many people on boards like this seem to have a compulsion be make themselves out to be something they are not. They make up some wild *** idea and wrap some bad science around it and hope to impress others with their genius. IMO, the best way to spot these pretenders is to develope at good, basic understanding of physics. Then, when they try to throw you Bull ****, you can spot it right away. It appears to me that this Setterfield fellow fits the above very well.

I suspect there is much we do not know about the Universe. It appears to be an independent natural system, but that doesn't mean it is static. Most, if not everything, in the Universe is continually changing, so the Universe itself is changing. Also, I don't discuss religion or politics.

If you are referring to the picture, I like it a lot.